Arizona Game and FIsh Department - Managing Today for Wildlife Tomorrow: azgfd.gov Arizona Game and Fish Department
Operation Game Thief: 1-800-352-0700Customer Service
 
   
 
 
    Follow AZGFD on Twitter  
BUY LICENSES | BIG GAME DRAW | eNEWS | CALENDAR | VIDEO | HUNTING | FISHING | WILDLIFE VIEWING | CONSERVATION | EDUCATION | BOATING | SHOOTING | OHV | SITE MAP | EMPLOYMENT

Arizona Game and Fish files to intervene in lead ammunition lawsuit for condors

Posted in: News Media
Nov 6, 2012
Share or Bookmark:
| More
Digg this story!

Printer friendly page

Litigants fail to recognize the consequences and threat their reckless lawsuit immediately poses to condor conservation

The Arizona Game and Fish Department today filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit recently filed against the Kaibab National Forest by the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and Center for Biological Diversity. The groups want the U.S. Forest Service to place a mandatory ban on hunting with lead ammunition in northern Arizona.
   
The authority governing hunting regulations rests only with the state and Arizona Game and Fish believes that voluntary, cooperative efforts to reduce lead available to condors is the best approach for long-term success of the condor program. The department also believes that a mandatory ban could create a backlash against condor conservation and hinder future endangered species’ reintroductions if the original condor reintroduction agreements are changed by court order. 

“A lead ammunition ban in Arizona is not the answer. We’ve grown accustomed to seeing these litigious groups in the courtrooms, yet seldom are they seen in the trenches and almost never with the dirt of hard conservation work under their fingernails. These groups have ignored the absolutely critical role that cooperation and on-the-ground involvement play in a successful wildlife conservation program,” says Director Larry Voyles of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.  “A court-forced ban could result in important condor conservation partners withdrawing from the reintroduction effort.” 

None of the groups that filed the lawsuit have actually participated in on-the-ground condor conservation efforts, despite numerous invitations to join the cooperative partnership that oversees condor conservation in Arizona and Utah.

Arizona Game and Fish began a voluntary, hunter-supported non-lead program in 2003 to reduce the amount of lead available to condors. Before the department’s program began, estimates showed that less than four percent of successful Kaibab deer hunters used non-lead ammunition. Now, 80 to 90 percent of the state’s hunters in condor range have taken voluntary lead-reduction measures over the past five years by using non-lead ammunition or removing gut piles from the field.   

Condors are now frequently using lands in southern Utah for foraging, especially during the fall hunting season. With expansion of the condor’s range come new hunters to educate. Conservation management must adapt along with the birds. The Utah Division of Wildlife recognizes the role it plays in the conservation of the species and began a more aggressive non-lead program in 2011. 

“We need to give Utah the opportunity to educate hunters. Remember, lasting change takes time, but results in lasting cooperation. It is naïve to think a lawsuit will fix the problem of ingested lead in condors,” said Voyles. “This reckless litigation risks future species’ reintroductions as well as the destruction of good will with, and hard work by, hunters and other cooperators.”   
   
When California condors were reintroduced into Arizona, a special provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 10(j) Rule, and an agreement between a coalition of counties and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was used by the Service to obtain acceptance among communities in Arizona and Utah that had strongly opposed the reintroduction. This rule classifies the Arizona-Utah condor population as experimental and not essential to the species’ survival. The 10(j) rule offered assurances that “current and future land…uses…shall not be restricted due to…condors” and that the federal government did “not intend to” modify or restrict “current hunting regulations anywhere…in the experimental population area.” An agreement with the effected local counties commits to removal of condors if the status of the condor under ESA is changed.
   
Arizona’s lead reduction efforts are voluntary and fully comply with assurances the federal government made when they sought local support for condor conservation. If this lawsuit is successful, it will force the federal government to renege on the local commitments it made and jeopardize future support for condors and other endangered species’ reintroduction programs.
   
The State of California banned lead ammunition in California’s condor range in 2008, but a recent study by the University of California/Davis concluded that condor lead poisoning has not been significantly reduced in that condor population.    
   
Lead poisoning is the leading cause of death in condors and the main obstacle to a self-sustaining population in Arizona and Utah. The department’s voluntary non-lead ammo program is designed to reduce this threat over the long term, without reneging on promises that were made to local communities. Preserving this trust is a critical part of condor conservation.
   
Endangered California condors were first reintroduced into northern Arizona in 1996 under the 10(j) umbrella when six captive-bred birds flew free from the rugged cliffs of the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. After dropping to only 22 individuals in the world in the 1980s, there are currently about 78 condors soaring free in northern Arizona and southern Utah and more than 400 in the world.
   
The Arizona-Utah condor conservation effort is a joint project of many partners, including The Peregrine Fund, Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Kaibab National Forest and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
   
Voyles proffers that, “It is not too late for these groups to withdraw their lawsuit and join us as cooperators, putting their resources towards on-the-ground conservation that can make a difference for condors.”
   

  Share or Bookmark:
| More
   

Home

Add this site to...


Mission | Customer Service | Web Policy | Send Comments | Employment | Commission Agenda | Office Locations | Site Map | Search | © 2008 AZGFD